But is it wrong to adjust the cost of tickets with respect to the rate of inflation? If teams don't adjust ticket prices to reflect that of inflation, they're essentially LOSING money.

Granted, my salary doesn't always follow the upswing of inflation, but I can understand why the cost of tickets would go up to account for general inflation.

Is it wrong to adjust your prices based on inflation? Shouldn't people expect this to happen?

MRKARNO

10-07-2004, 06:14 PM

No it's not wrong. People just like to complain. The price of tickets will go up and so will your salary. It's just basic economics. The real price of the ticket is not going up by much, but it's really just adjusted for inflation for the most part. The price going up is actually a function of the operating expenses going up which usually means that people are getting paid more at some point. Say what you want about the Reinsdorf ownership group, but they aren't pocketing a lot of money from this franchise. There's a relatively small operating profit.

ewokpelts

10-07-2004, 06:18 PM

No it's not wrong. People just like to complain. The price of tickets will go up and so will your salary. It's just basic economics. The real price of the ticket is not going up by much, but it's really just adjusted for inflation for the most part. The price going up is actually a function of the operating expenses going up which usually means that people are getting paid more at some point. Say what you want about the Reinsdorf ownership group, but they aren't pocketing a lot of money from this franchise. There's a relatively small operating profit.So why are the sox charging "premium prices"? and cubs only prices?
Gene

BackInBlack

10-07-2004, 06:26 PM

So why are the sox charging "premium prices"? and cubs only prices?

Because other teams are doing it, and if the Sox don't, then they're at a competitive disadvantage to other organizations in MLB. It's essentially revenue lost.

For example. Look at Michigan Stadium. They host 110,000 fans per game. Yet their athetic department is in the red every year, despite the fact that they put a winning product on the field.

Penn State, on the other hand, only hosts 106,000 fans per game, but they also have luxury suites that don't go for cheap. This provides Penn State with a great deal of additional revenue that the vast majority of the college football world doesn't have access to, and their athletic department finishes with a surplus on the balance sheet despite putting a poor product on the field.

Granted, a trillion other factors go into balancing a collegiate balance sheet, but this is a small example describing why the White Sox would benefit from establishing a "premium" section.

MRKARNO

10-07-2004, 06:32 PM

So why are the sox charging "premium prices"? and cubs only prices?
Gene

It's the law of supply and demand. They can make more money off of those games because they know the Cubs games will sell out and the weekend games will get 25,000+ regulary in order to keep the Mon-Fri games cheap enough to attract attendence. Also, payroll is most probably going up at a rate higher than market value for the second year in a row. You gotta find a way to pay for it. You can't just get a higher payroll for free.

munchman33

10-07-2004, 06:43 PM

So why are the sox charging "premium prices"? and cubs only prices?
Gene
Gene, you're a smart guy. Why bother asking that question?

PaleHoseGeorge

10-07-2004, 06:57 PM

You guys are dangerously close to spinning out of orbit and heading for deep space with all these false assumptions about ballpark pricing.

So for all our college students (or those playing one on the internet) here is what every Economics 101 class teaches you:

You pay $5.50 for a beer at the ballpark. That's the market price at the ballpark. You would be a complete boob to pay $5.50 at Osco. The market price is $4.99 for a whole six-pack.

They charge you $5.50 in the ballpark not because of cost. They charge you $5.50 because they know you're a captive audience for 3 hours and you're thirsty. If they charged you $100 per beer, they would make less money because they wouldn't sell enough to make up the marginal revenue. If they charged you $0.10 per beer, they would make less money because the cost of serving it would exceed the marginal revenue. (There would also be a riot from drunken over-indulgence, but that's another story.)
:wink:

Owners discovered years ago they could keep raising prices simply by claiming they need the money to pay for better ballplayers. They shift the demand curve to the right by signing players like Curt Schilling and Randy Johnson and make even more money as the marginal revenue they make on everything (from tickets to beer, and TV/radio deals to sponsorship opportunities) goes up. Championships result -- even for 4 year-old franchises.

Guys like Reinsdorf are a different sort. He raises prices whether he signs anyone or not, and blames whatever shortcomings the team has on his fans for not spending more. He has no understanding of either economic or business principles. Nor do his apologists. And that's why Reinsdorf and his apologists are all losers.

Now please stop with the mindless speculation. You're embarrassing yourselves.

mweflen

10-07-2004, 07:03 PM

The problem with all this apologizing for price increases by citing inflation is that they have increased at 2 and 3 times the rate of inflation ever since the park opened.
------------
Here is the breakdown of 2004's multi-tiered pricing scheme:

Keep in mind, these aggregates account for all discount dates. I did not include $1 Kids Sundays, because they are so limited and because there is no firm data on how many kids tickets are actually sold on those dates. Anyway, since the tuesday promotion and the kids promotion are walk-up only sales, I'm being generous as it is by counting ALL tuesday tickets as half priced.
-----------
Now, here are the 1991 ticket prices for each section of the park:

http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/...egory=3&id=2053 (http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/rwas/index.php?category=3&id=2053)
-----------
Here are the percentage increases for each section, comparing 2004 to 1991.

These are VERY interesting numbers. The question that springs to my mind is this: if the fans could afford the ticket prices of 1991 (as they seemed to from '91 to '94, turning out in record numbers), do price increases account for some of the reduced attendance post-1994? If so, what SHOULD the prices be to keep them in line with COLA adjustments to the fan bases' pocketbooks?

Well, inflation generally fluctuates between 2 and 6% per year. So let's say that it's 5% annually. There have been 13 years since 1991. So that should mean tickets should increase a grand total of 65%, right?

Wrong. You also have to compound the interest - adding 5% to the 1992 price, 5% to the 1993 price, etc. So in fact, compounded, the COLA for Sox tickets would be an 89% increase.

------------------
See any difference? For all but the UD, ticket prices have increased well beyond what inflation would justify.

Every injustice in history, big or small, has enjoyed countless victims who try to justify their own suffering. Guess this is no different.

MRKARNO

10-07-2004, 07:40 PM

Mweflen:

1. One really needs to see a table of how the payroll increased relative to the average payroll over the past 13 years to properly evaluate ticket prices.

2. No one can find any information anywhere suggesting the Reinsdorf group has been making huge profits off this team, while many worse and less popular teams do turn larger profits, so obviously this isnt an unjust raise.

3. If you don't like it, don't go because a lowered demand is the only way to lower prices. If you can't not go, then you are forced to pay the price to go to a game regardless of what it is because by virtue of going to the game, you are approving of the price it costs to go.

Lip Man 1

10-07-2004, 08:06 PM

Very nice George. I find it interesting that, as of this writing, none of the economic majors has bothered to offer a reply to your post.

Lip

MRKARNO

10-07-2004, 08:11 PM

.

Guys like Reinsdorf are a different sort. He raises prices whether he signs anyone or not, and blames whatever shortcomings the team has on his fans for not spending more. He has no understanding of either economic or business principles. Nor do his apologists. And that's why Reinsdorf and his apologists are all losers.

Well either I agree with you and the independent financial reviews of the major league ballclubs are wrong or the reports are right and I will go ahead and ask this question: If the franchise is not producing an operating profit and Reinsdorf & Co aren't pocketing the money, where is it going exactly?
I'm perfectly willing to change my opinion if I can see evidence that Reinsy is making large profits off of this team, but until I see such evidence, I don't see how what he is doing is so awful.

Daver

10-07-2004, 08:23 PM

Well either I agree with you and the independent financial reviews of the major league ballclubs are wrong or the reports are right and I will go ahead and ask this question: If the franchise is not producing an operating profit and Reinsdorf & Co aren't pocketing the money, where is it going exactly?
There is a reason MLB refuses to open their books for any reason. There is a reason that MLB refused to allow Jeffrey Loria to seek bankruptcy protection for the Montreal Expos, and instead brokered a deal to buy him out and lend him the rest of the money needed to buy the Marlins, leaving the league as the owner (in a clear conflict of interest that was truly exposed in 2002) of the Expos, a team they are still the owners of, even though the franchise is moving to Washington. There is a reason Bud Selig was all but accused of perjury and laughed off the witness stand on Capitol Hill when he testified there prior to signing the last CBA on the financial state of MLB.

Any guesses on what those reasons are?

MRKARNO

10-07-2004, 08:46 PM

There is a reason MLB refuses to open their books for any reason. There is a reason that MLB refused to allow Jeffrey Loria to seek bankruptcy protection for the Montreal Expos, and instead brokered a deal to buy him out and lend him the rest of the money needed to buy the Marlins, leaving the league as the owner (in a clear conflict of interest that was truly exposed in 2002) of the Expos, a team they are still the owners of, even though the franchise is moving to Washington. There is a reason Bud Selig was all but accused of perjury and laughed off the witness stand on Capitol Hill when he testified there prior to signing the last CBA on the financial state of MLB.

Any guesses on what those reasons are?

Your insight has certainly swayed me to a more anti-owner opinion than before. It's hard to remember how crappy this bunch is sometimes.

Lip Man 1

10-07-2004, 09:55 PM

And let us not forget that when 'Bud' Selig was named 'interim' commissioner he vacated his ownership of the Brewers..... to his daughter!

No conflict of interest there right?

and remember the lawsuit from the Expos minority owners claiming that MLB deliberately left them twisting in the wind and devaluing their investment (team) is still in the legal system perhaps eventually to go to trial.

Lip

Daver

10-07-2004, 10:14 PM

And let us not forget that when 'Bud' Selig was named 'interim' commissioner he vacated his ownership of the Brewers..... to his daughter!

No conflict of interest there right?

and remember the lawsuit from the Expos minority owners claiming that MLB deliberately left them twisting in the wind and devaluing their investment (team) is still in the legal system perhaps eventually to go to trial.

Lip
That will probably not go to trial, MLB will not venture into a pissing match in a Canadian court, don't be surprised when a payoff is announced. They already bought Jeffrey Loria's silence, whatever it takes to extend it will merely be added to the cost of whoever wins the right to own the Washington whatevers, my guess is it will be the first group that ponies up the cost of a franchise fee, similar to what Jerry Coangelo paid for the D'backs.

mweflen

10-07-2004, 11:19 PM

Mweflen:
1. One really needs to see a table of how the payroll increased relative to the average payroll over the past 13 years to properly evaluate ticket prices.I was merely refuting the assertion that ticket price increases are justifiable by taking into account inflation. Clearly, they are not, since the rpice increase has far outstripped inflation. Justification due to increased player salaries is another matter, which is less easy to see relationships with. (all numbers are from http://www.baseball-reference.com (http://www.baseball-reference.com/).

I don't see a strong relationship between payroll increase and ticket cost, from this data. Payroll has fluctuated up and down year by year, while ticket costs have only risen. I think the data is pretty unclear about any possible relationship between these two factors.

The clearest and most obvious relationship is between record and attendance. However, this relationship does not hold particularly strongly, either. 1997 vs. 2000 is a good case in point.

Why should our payroll increases relative to other payrolls in the majors matter? The only salient relationship in terms of the argument over whether payroll increase has led to ticket price increase is : our payroll, to our ticket prices, to inflation.

2. No one can find any information anywhere suggesting the Reinsdorf group has been making huge profits off this team, while many worse and less popular teams do turn larger profits, so obviously this isnt an unjust raise.Certainly, not I nor anyone else without the information can speak on this. I only know what is being asked of my wallet, and what is reported on the internet in terms of salaries and attendance.

3. If you don't like it, don't go because a lowered demand is the only way to lower prices. If you can't not go, then you are forced to pay the price to go to a game regardless of what it is because by virtue of going to the game, you are approving of the price it costs to go.
Demand has decreased. People attend fewer games now than in the early 90s.

Personally, I only purchase tickets on half price nights - when the prices are adjusted to be within reach of my demand. I have no pressing urgent desire to see a game for $30-$40. I can see thirty games for that price on cable television. But for $10-$20, I feel a lot better about the expenditure. Every other game I have attended, the tickets are procured through other means. I rarely purchase concessions, because the prices are too high (the excpetion being dollar dog thursdays). So I cannot be accused of "not voting with my wallet." If I had no access to free tickets, I can guarantee you my 2005 attendence would be limited to 10 mondays.

jabrch

10-08-2004, 12:10 AM

So why are the sox charging "premium prices"? and cubs only prices?
Gene
Gene, Cubs tickets are more expensive than Sox tickets...

ewokpelts

10-08-2004, 12:34 AM

It's the law of supply and demand. They can make more money off of those games because they know the Cubs games will sell out and the weekend games will get 25,000+ regulary in order to keep the Mon-Fri games cheap enough to attract attendence. Also, payroll is most probably going up at a rate higher than market value for the second year in a row. You gotta find a way to pay for it. You can't just get a higher payroll for free.:reinsy
It's because I like money. And what's this about payroll? Aside from giving to myself and my partners of course.....

ewokpelts

10-08-2004, 12:35 AM

Gene, Cubs tickets are more expensive than Sox tickets...our "maligned"upper deck costs more for cubs/sox than thier "beautiful" upper deck for cubs/sox
Gene

ewokpelts

10-08-2004, 12:38 AM

You guys are dangerously close to spinning out of orbit and heading for deep space with all these false assumptions about ballpark pricing.

So for all our college students (or those playing one on the internet) here is what every Economics 101 class teaches you:

You pay $5.50 for a beer at the ballpark. That's the market price at the ballpark. You would be a complete boob to pay $5.50 at Osco. The market price is $4.99 for a whole six-pack.

They charge you $5.50 in the ballpark not because of cost. They charge you $5.50 because they know you're a captive audience for 3 hours and you're thirsty. If they charged you $100 per beer, they would make less money because they wouldn't sell enough to make up the marginal revenue. If they charged you $0.10 per beer, they would make less money because the cost of serving it would exceed the marginal revenue. (There would also be a riot from drunken over-indulgence, but that's another story.)
:wink:

Owners discovered years ago they could keep raising prices simply by claiming they need the money to pay for better ballplayers. They shift the demand curve to the right by signing players like Curt Schilling and Randy Johnson and make even more money as the marginal revenue they make on everything (from tickets to beer, and TV/radio deals to sponsorship opportunities) goes up. Championships result -- even for 4 year-old franchises.

Guys like Reinsdorf are a different sort. He raises prices whether he signs anyone or not, and blames whatever shortcomings the team has on his fans for not spending more. He has no understanding of either economic or business principles. Nor do his apologists. And that's why Reinsdorf and his apologists are all losers.

Now please stop with the mindless speculation. You're embarrassing yourselves.George,
Amen brother. If I ever meet you ata game, remind me to buy you a 5.50 beer. You hit the nail RIGHT on the head.
Gene

ewokpelts

10-08-2004, 12:41 AM

The problem with all this apologizing for price increases by citing inflation is that they have increased at 2 and 3 times the rate of inflation ever since the park opened.
------------
Here is the breakdown of 2004's multi-tiered pricing scheme:

Keep in mind, these aggregates account for all discount dates. I did not include $1 Kids Sundays, because they are so limited and because there is no firm data on how many kids tickets are actually sold on those dates. Anyway, since the tuesday promotion and the kids promotion are walk-up only sales, I'm being generous as it is by counting ALL tuesday tickets as half priced.
-----------
Now, here are the 1991 ticket prices for each section of the park:

http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/...egory=3&id=2053 (http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/rwas/index.php?category=3&id=2053)
-----------
Here are the percentage increases for each section, comparing 2004 to 1991.

These are VERY interesting numbers. The question that springs to my mind is this: if the fans could afford the ticket prices of 1991 (as they seemed to from '91 to '94, turning out in record numbers), do price increases account for some of the reduced attendance post-1994? If so, what SHOULD the prices be to keep them in line with COLA adjustments to the fan bases' pocketbooks?

Well, inflation generally fluctuates between 2 and 6% per year. So let's say that it's 5% annually. There have been 13 years since 1991. So that should mean tickets should increase a grand total of 65%, right?

Wrong. You also have to compound the interest - adding 5% to the 1992 price, 5% to the 1993 price, etc. So in fact, compounded, the COLA for Sox tickets would be an 89% increase.

------------------
See any difference? For all but the UD, ticket prices have increased well beyond what inflation would justify.

Every injustice in history, big or small, has enjoyed countless victims who try to justify their own suffering. Guess this is no different.wow...now i'm even more angry...
gene

ewokpelts

10-08-2004, 12:46 AM

I was merely refuting the assertion that ticket price increases are justifiable by taking into account inflation. Clearly, they are not, since the rpice increase has far outstripped inflation. Justification due to increased player salaries is another matter, which is less easy to see relationships with. (all numbers are from http://www.baseball-reference.com (http://www.baseball-reference.com/).

I don't see a strong relationship between payroll increase and ticket cost, from this data. Payroll has fluctuated up and down year by year, while ticket costs have only risen. I think the data is pretty unclear about any possible relationship between these two factors.

The clearest and most obvious relationship is between record and attendance. However, this relationship does not hold particularly strongly, either. 1997 vs. 2000 is a good case in point.

Why should our payroll increases relative to other payrolls in the majors matter? The only salient relationship in terms of the argument over whether payroll increase has led to ticket price increase is : our payroll, to our ticket prices, to inflation.

Certainly, not I nor anyone else without the information can speak on this. I only know what is being asked of my wallet, and what is reported on the internet in terms of salaries and attendance.

Demand has decreased. People attend fewer games now than in the early 90s.

Personally, I only purchase tickets on half price nights - when the prices are adjusted to be within reach of my demand. I have no pressing urgent desire to see a game for $30-$40. I can see thirty games for that price on cable television. But for $10-$20, I feel a lot better about the expenditure. Every other game I have attended, the tickets are procured through other means. I rarely purchase concessions, because the prices are too high (the excpetion being dollar dog thursdays). So I cannot be accused of "not voting with my wallet." If I had no access to free tickets, I can guarantee you my 2005 attendence would be limited to 10 mondays.:reinsy
MWEFLEN, opening day is a full price game. You thought I was gunne let a packed house get in for half off?! HAH!!!!

mweflen

10-08-2004, 01:14 AM

The argument that players making more money should somehow justify a ticket price increase does not hold water with me. If I could watch a game in the bleachers for 6 bucks in 1991, but i'd have to fork over 24 smackers in 2004, the notion "player X needs more money, so I'll just have to pay 4 times as much) does not ameliorate my feeling ripped off.

Fans did not give players raises - owners did. The owners and the players have agreed to an insane series of contracts which have pushed salaries to idiotically stratospheric heights, as well as unbalanced the game competitively.

I'm supposed to eat this and call it ice cream why? Not only has the cost to me been increased beyond the rate of inflation every year, but the quality of the product (competitive major league baseball with relative parity between teams) has been diminished.

Then, we hear how player salaries have undergone a readjustment or deflation in the days since A-Rod, that contracts are getting smaller and smarter.

So where is the corresponding deflation in ticket costs? :?:

pinwheels3530

10-08-2004, 03:15 AM

I AM COMPLAINING........HIGHER TICKET PRICES, NO WORLD SERIES!!!!!!:cuss:

SOXSINCE'70

10-08-2004, 07:20 AM

Guys like Reinsdorf are a different sort. He raises prices whether he signs anyone or not, and blames whatever shortcomings the team has on his fans for not spending more. He has no understanding of either economic or business principles. Nor do his apologists. And that's why Reinsdorf and his apologists are all losers.
God bless you,George!!Finally,someone understands my hatred of Reinsdork!!:worship: :worship:

MisterB

10-08-2004, 10:47 AM

The argument that players making more money should somehow justify a ticket price increase does not hold water with me. If I could watch a game in the bleachers for 6 bucks in 1991, but i'd have to fork over 24 smackers in 2004, the notion "player X needs more money, so I'll just have to pay 4 times as much) does not ameliorate my feeling ripped off.

Fans did not give players raises - owners did. The owners and the players have agreed to an insane series of contracts which have pushed salaries to idiotically stratospheric heights, as well as unbalanced the game competitively.

I'm supposed to eat this and call it ice cream why? Not only has the cost to me been increased beyond the rate of inflation every year, but the quality of the product (competitive major league baseball with relative parity between teams) has been diminished.

Then, we hear how player salaries have undergone a readjustment or deflation in the days since A-Rod, that contracts are getting smaller and smarter.

So where is the corresponding deflation in ticket costs? :?:I'd suggest you stop following major league baseball if you have such a problem with it. Otherwise, chalk it up to the cost of doing business. If your competitors are spending more to get superior talent, you either start spending more or write off being competitive. As you point out, the Sox ticket prices have risen (on average) more than 100% since 1991. Sox payroll has inreased more than 100% since 1991. MLB median payroll has increased 170% since 1991 ($24M to $65M), and the top MLB payroll has increased over 450% ($33M to $184M).

Flight #24

10-08-2004, 11:08 AM

I'd suggest you stop following major league baseball if you have such a problem with it. Otherwise, chalk it up to the cost of doing business. If your competitors are spending more to get superior talent, you either start spending more or write off being competitive. As you point out, the Sox ticket prices have risen (on average) more than 100% since 1991. Sox payroll has inreased more than 100% since 1991. MLB median payroll has increased 170% since 1991 ($24M to $65M), and the top MLB payroll has increased over 450% ($33M to $184M).
Plus, it should be comapred with the change in average ticket prices over the period. If competitors are raising prices, you're at a competitive disadvantage if you don't match. We also don't have any info on the cost to run the place, which may or may not move with inflation.

------------------
See any difference? For all but the UD, ticket prices have increased well beyond what inflation would justify.

Every injustice in history, big or small, has enjoyed countless victims who try to justify their own suffering. Guess this is no different.This arguement is also flawed in the Fact that in the past 13 years the inflation rate has never gone over 3.38% and has maintained arround the mid-2's.

So why are the sox charging "premium prices"? and cubs only prices?
Gene
If I'm not mistaken, the Cubs had premium game prices before the Sox. Granted, I don't buy Cub tickets an never checked it out but I think it's true.

Bob

gosox41

10-08-2004, 01:31 PM

This arguement is also flawed in the Fact that in the past 13 years the inflation rate has never gone over 3.38% and has maintained arround the mid-2's.

My guess is the real reason for such a large increase is GREED!
First, it's a whole other debate about inflation and how it's measured. I've seen my costs go up and up for the most part, and a lot more then 2-3%.

Second, inflation rate is one thing, now look at how fast payroll salaries went up in the last 13 years. They've been down the last 2 seasons, but the average salary today is more then 39% higher then it was for a ML player 13 years ago.

Bob

Flight #24

10-08-2004, 01:33 PM

If I'm not mistaken, the Cubs had premium game prices before the Sox. Granted, I don't buy Cub tickets an never checked it out but I think it's true.

Bob
Aren't Cubs prices also in general higher than Sox tix? I haven't been to a game at Wrigley in a while, but I thought that was the case. If so, all the Sox are really doing is charging the going rate for "premium" games and discounting the rest.

Tekijawa

10-08-2004, 01:38 PM

George,
Amen brother. If I ever meet you ata game, remind me to buy you a 5.50 beer. You hit the nail RIGHT on the head.
GeneI think he'd be happier if you met him at Osco. Obviously you missed the point of his post. George seems like the type of guy that would rather have 6 beers instead of one... I know I would
:gulp: :gulp: :gulp: :gulp: :gulp: :gulp:

mweflen

10-08-2004, 01:40 PM

This arguement is also flawed in the Fact that in the past 13 years the inflation rate has never gone over 3.38% and has maintained arround the mid-2's.

so actually we should have got a 39.06% increase in the past 13 years ticket prices should technically be if inflation is the main reason...

I love stuff like that, very interested in Stock markets and all that stuff. I'm starting to thikn I should have listened more in Micro/Macro economics class so I wouldn't have to be in Sales. Then again I'm pretty happy with my 35 hour work week...

mweflen

10-08-2004, 02:31 PM

Okay, so let's summarize here.

White Sox Payroll (the only applicable one to White Sox ticket prices, IMHO) between 1991 and 2004 has increased from $24m to $65m, an increase of 170%.

Inflation compounded annually for the period 1991-2004 has been 39%.

Therefore, player salaries have outstripped inflation 131%. OK.

The average ticket price for 2004, taking into account relative sizes of sections and discount dates, is $20.50.

The average ticket price accounting for same in 1991 was 10.26.

So ticket prices have risen by just about 100%, which outstrips the aforementioned 39% annually compounded inflation rate by 61%.

I am dubious, however, about the relationship between payroll and ticket price. Payroll expenditure seems to account for probably 20-30% of a team's expenditure of income in a given year. So payroll would have some effect on the bottom line of course, but not a direct 1:1 impact. We are not taking into account concession and parking prices, broadcast rights and advertising income, revenue sharing income, and expenditures on facilities and ancillary employees. Also, as mentioned, payroll has been fluctuating up and down. According to reports, the Sox are looking to shed payroll for 2005 (Magglio's 14 mil being a big one, Jose's 5 mil, and all the talk about Konerko and Lee as well). Yet, ticket price increases are forthcoming for 2005.

If payroll increases were truly the main factor in team profitability and deciding ticket prices, the Sox would have gone out of business already.

Make no mistake, the White Sox are not losing money. Reinsdorf would have sold the team long ago if they were. They are a for-profit corporation, specifically the profit of their principal investors. Is there anything wrong with this? No.

However, they have placed a burden on their working class fans by doubling their ticket prices in the past 13 years, while median income has only increased 39% (and that's IF the average employee has seen a COLA increase equalling inflation every year - a dubious prospect at best.)

Attendance has gone down, comparing the first half of the 90s to the 10 years following. There can be no dispute about this.

The Sox W-L record and year-end standings have remained virtually identical, save for a few blips, between 1991 and 2004. A weak relationship between record and attendance exists, but it is not a strong one, since many years with better records have been out-attended by years with worse records.

I submit that the major factor (acknowledging that there are others) in declining attendance has been ticket prices outpacing inflation, making it more difficult for fans to attend as many games per year as they'd like.

I also submit that the major factor in rising ticket prices is definitely not inflation and is not likely to be increased payroll.

I am not making any statements about greed or anything of the like. I'm just looking at numbers.

Flight #24

10-08-2004, 03:36 PM

According to reports, the Sox are looking to shed payroll for 2005 (Magglio's 14 mil being a big one, Jose's 5 mil, and all the talk about Konerko and Lee as well). Yet, ticket price increases are forthcoming for 2005.
The appropriate comparison is 2005 opening day salary to 2004 opening day salary. From 2004 opening day, we'll have shed Koch(6), Maggs(14), Valentin(4) and added Garcia(8), Everett(4), Contreras(6). Factor in the raises due to Frank, Paulie, Buehrle, etc and you add another estimated $10mil. So in actualty, just by cutting those 3 guys we end up RAISING salary for 2005.

Now if you trade Konerko/Lee, that would be another reduction, but all the accounts that mention that also mention KW going out to the FA market to get at the very least, a starting pitcher if not also some offensive help (the much ballyhooed OBP guys). So it seems highly likely that payroll is actually going to increase, not decrease - and by a reasonable amount.

I also submit that the major factor in rising ticket prices is definitely not inflation and is not likely to be increased payroll.

I am not making any statements about greed or anything of the like. I'm just looking at numbers.
I think a comparison of historical Sox ticket prices to historical average MLB prices is appropriate to truly understand things. IIRC, the Sox have generally been below average for prices, so if they bump them a bit to get to average, that's not really a gouging of the fans.

JKryl

10-08-2004, 03:55 PM

Come on guys, while I admire all the effort it took to come up with the breakdown of cost versus income, we all know that the bottom line is the bottom line. The gate revenue has crashed because the Sox have been putting a mediocre team on the field for the last couple of years coupled with a resurgent Scrub team that draws away the middle of the roaders. With a corresponding loss of revenue from broadcasting rights (because of fewer viewers), and I would suppose a similar loss from advertising revenues, the team is going to the one outlet that they have absolute control over, the gate.

So, what it boils down to is management using the argument of inflated player salaries and decreased gate revenues to milk the fan for every possible dollar. They come out with the argument that they have to raise the ticket prices to go after quality players. Who have they picked up in recent years? Royce Clayton? Koch? It's just another smoke screen to cover the profit margin. And, the worst part is, I wouldn't really mind if they put a winner on the field.

I still have to ask, why isn't, "Sox" in the spell checker??:(:

Ol' No. 2

10-08-2004, 04:24 PM

I submit that the major factor (acknowledging that there are others) in declining attendance has been ticket prices outpacing inflation, making it more difficult for fans to attend as many games per year as they'd like.Has anyone here heard about the baseball strike in 1994? It was in all the papers. Attendance for ALL teams dropped precipitously in 1995, and has been slowly climbing back since. I'd have to go back and check the figures, but IIRC, overall attendance has just recently recovered back to pre-strike levels. George is absolutely correct. Ticket prices are set at whatever the market will bear. As are prices for everything else. As such, payroll doesn't determine ticket prices...ticket prices (actually total revenues) determine payroll.

BTW, while MLB jealously guards their actual revenue figures, the most reliable estimates put player salaries at 60-65% of total revenues, which is in line with football and basketball, but less than the NHL (which is why THEY'RE not playing).

MisterB

10-09-2004, 01:19 AM

Has anyone here heard about the baseball strike in 1994? It was in all the papers. Attendance for ALL teams dropped precipitously in 1995, and has been slowly climbing back since. I'd have to go back and check the figures, but IIRC, overall attendance has just recently recovered back to pre-strike levels.
I worked it out recently. At the time of the strike MLB was averaging a little over 31k per game, this year was a little under 30k/game.

gosox41

10-09-2004, 08:03 AM

Come on guys, while I admire all the effort it took to come up with the breakdown of cost versus income, we all know that the bottom line is the bottom line. The gate revenue has crashed because the Sox have been putting a mediocre team on the field for the last couple of years coupled with a resurgent Scrub team that draws away the middle of the roaders. With a corresponding loss of revenue from broadcasting rights (because of fewer viewers), and I would suppose a similar loss from advertising revenues, the team is going to the one outlet that they have absolute control over, the gate.

So, what it boils down to is management using the argument of inflated player salaries and decreased gate revenues to milk the fan for every possible dollar. They come out with the argument that they have to raise the ticket prices to go after quality players. Who have they picked up in recent years? Royce Clayton? Koch? It's just another smoke screen to cover the profit margin. And, the worst part is, I wouldn't really mind if they put a winner on the field.

I still have to ask, why isn't, "Sox" in the spell checker??:(:
Just don't confuse ticket prices with quality players. If the Sox raise ticket prices and don't raise payroll, then I can see getting on JR.

If the Sox raise ticket prices, raise payroll, and then suck because they go after mediocore players then blame Kenny Williams.